House of Commons Hansard #18 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was co-operatives.

Topics

Inuit Art
Statements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Nancy Karetak-Lindell Nunavut, NU

Mr. Speaker, the popularity of Inuit art has brought great opportunities to many northern artists. Unfortunately, Inuit artists are not the only ones profiting from these opportunities.

An industry producing imitation Inuit carvings and prints, commonly referred to as fakelore, is making it harder and harder for legitimate artists to sell their work. This clearly must come to an end.

This fakelore is so common that a group of Inuit tourists from my riding were shocked to see that the parliamentary gift shop here in Centre Block is selling it.

I am pleased to inform the House that following our conversation, Mr. Speaker, we will be exploring options to promote legitimate Inuit art in the parliamentary gift shop.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Statements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, a young west coast student. An east coast athlete. A mother and her son in Ottawa. Each belongs to a club for which membership was not an option. Each was killed on a Canadian highway by a drunk driver.

This association's membership was sadly increased again today by four, and does so every day. More than 400 people will also be injured today as a result of alcohol related crashes. And this will happen again tomorrow and the next day.

It is a fact that alcohol significantly increases the risk of motor vehicle crashes. It is also a fact that alcohol increases the severity of traffic collisions.

Canadians witness far too many tragedies that could be prevented.

Tomorrow the organization MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, will be in Ottawa to reveal the results of an important survey. Following their press conference, I will host an informal reception where all members of Parliament are invited to meet with the board and members of MADD and discuss the proposed initiatives.

I encourage all my colleagues to participate in what will be a very informative session. Finally, I congratulate MADD for its tremendous efforts in combating the daily carnage on our highways caused by drunk drivers.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Reform

Preston Manning Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister is going to Kyoto, Japan in two months to sign a massive emissions treaty. Depending on how these negotiations unfold, this emissions deal could end up affecting the life of every Canadian.

Yesterday the environment minister told the House that the Liberals have already made up their minds to sign “legally binding targets in Kyoto”.

Why has the environment minister publicly committed to signing a treaty that has yet to be negotiated? Is that not putting the cart before the horse?

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:15 p.m.

Northumberland
Ontario

Liberal

Christine Stewart Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the international community recognizes that climate change is a global problem every nation in the world must address.

The prime minister at the meeting of the G-8 in Denver at the end of May and again at the special session of the United Nations in June committed our country—and others did the same—to medium term legally binding commitments in Kyoto, Japan to address this very serious global problem.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Reform

Preston Manning Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the environment minister whether she will sign the Kyoto deal even if the Canadian provinces do not agree to it. She refused to answer, saying only that she would negotiate with the provinces to implement whatever deal she signs in Japan.

Yesterday Alberta's environment minister said in no uncertain terms that Alberta will not accept as binding an emissions treaty arrived at in this way.

Does the Liberal government intend to force this emissions deal down the throats of Albertans exactly in the same way it enforced the national energy program?

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:15 p.m.

Northumberland
Ontario

Liberal

Christine Stewart Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, comparisons are odious.

I would like to inform the member across the floor that I have been, with my colleagues on this side, in dialogue with the various stakeholders on this issue across the country. I spent a day long session with my provincial counterparts discussing this issue. I just finished a meeting with all of them, including my counterpart from Alberta, and they all recognize the importance of this country addressing this important issue.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Reform

Preston Manning Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, we remember the dialogue that preceded the national energy program, so excuse us if we do not have much faith in it.

Yesterday environment said that implementing the Kyoto deal will “incur costs”. The Conference Board of Canada estimates that those costs could reach $4,000 a year for the average family. Canadians have to be told where those moneys are going to come from. Are they going to come from fuel taxes? Are they going to come from carbon taxes? Are they going to come from other taxes? Or are they going to come from all of the above?

Which Canadians are going to have to pay for the Kyoto deal and how much will they pay?

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:15 p.m.

Northumberland
Ontario

Liberal

Christine Stewart Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the federal government assures all Canadians that as a national issue we are all going to have to address the measures that will have to be taken. There will not be measures that are not discussed thoroughly with the major stakeholders on this important issue.

There are also important opportunities for this country attached to addressing this issue.

I would like to quote to the House a statement made by the chairman of British Petroleum some weeks ago in which he said “The time to contemplate action is not when the links between greenhouse gases and climate change can be conclusively proven”.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:15 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, on October 6 the minister of public works claimed that the government introduced new contracting rules in 1994, rules that were supposed to clean up the contracting fiasco in his department. Two years after the changes were supposedly made, his own director general of audits admits there is evidence of continuing contract manipulation in his own department.

How can the minister claim that the mess in his own department was cleaned up when his own officials were saying there was ongoing contract manipulation?

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel
Québec

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, if the member has proof that there is manipulation he should come forward and give it to us. We always try to improve the system. We have a good system and every day we find some discrepancies and we change them.

If the member has any proof he should come forward so that we can look at it properly.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of a leaked confidential memo written by the Director General of Audits and sent to the Deputy Minister of Public Works. This memo describes the doctoring of documents and instances where appropriate ministerial approval was bypassed.

How can the minister reassure Canadians that contracting procedures are being followed by the Liberal government when his own Director General of Audits condemns the practices that he has initiated?

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel
Québec

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, we have a third party review in place. Whenever there is a contract that has not been following procedure we know about it. We make sure the rules are followed.

Again the hon. member, instead of throwing into the air the usual innuendo the Reform Party is used to, should come forward with specific facts and then we can look at them.

Right now the auditor general report states very clearly that we have a good system. Every day and every year we are improving it.

Franco-Quebec Accord On Child Support
Oral Question Period

October 22nd, 1997 / 2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec is under no obligation, by tradition or otherwise, to have Ottawa approve an agreement on a matter within its jurisdiction signed with another government, in this instance to enforce child support with the French government.

How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs claim today that Quebec should have this agreement, which is within its exclusive provincial jurisdiction, approved by Ottawa?

Franco-Quebec Accord On Child Support
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Winnipeg South Centre
Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to quote, for the benefit of the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the statement made by the French government.

It reads “The prior agreement of the federal government to the signature of an agreement on mutual legal assistance with Quebec is a necessary condition to the approval—by the French parliament—Without this agreement, the Franco-Quebec accord would not be valid in France”.

Franco-Quebec Accord On Child Support
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, this is fantastic. The minister is now saying precisely what we were saying yesterday and the exact opposite of what he said yesterday.

Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that France had voluntarily supplied the federal government with the text of the agreement, claiming there was a problem and that it did not have to, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should have known.

How could they claim that France, given its legal tradition, its legal framework, should not supply Ottawa directly with this agreement signed with Quebec?—